You must post a clear and direct question in the title. The title may contain two, short, necessary context sentences.
No text is allowed in the textbox. Your thoughts/responses to the question can go in the comments section. more >>

Any post asking for advice should be generic and not specific to your situation alone. more >>

All I do is follow the law, especially seeing as people get even more butthurt when I decide my personal safety is at a greater-than-normal risk (snow, massive traffic, high wind, low visibility) and take to the sidewalk

Heh. "Cycling on pavements" is a term we've got to stop using because it causes so much cross-Atlantic confusion. I realize you mean the pedestrian walking on the edge of the road, but in the US that would refer to the main part of the road where cars and bikes both belong.

A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road.

If America wants me to stop using it then America is going to need to start using Flavour, Odour, Colour, etc. The United States is a great place but don't implement your linguistics on the country that that mugged it from other languages.

I wish cities would somehow construct an entirely different area for bikers to ride. In the same way pedestrians to walk in the center of the street, bikers should have their own area. Some cities try to mark off the right side of the rode, but that's still too dangerous. It's got to be a completely different sectioned off part of road or sidewalk

Like I said, I have no problem with biking. It's great. I bike too, except on trails where cars don't exist. If biking is going to be better incorporated into urban areas, there's got to be a better method of doing it than the current methods which only serve to increase risk

Look into if you have a bike union in your city. If not you most likely have one in your state. See what they're doing to, and see how you can help. We cyclists need more support from non cyclists to get any real change to biking infrastructure.

There are some negative side effects, which is why they aren't as common in some places:

They take up road space, so they may potentially eat up a lane. This results in more traffic in already congested areas. Our latest bike lane on Broadway resulted in a 2 lane road becoming a 1 lane road.

They eat up parking spaces, resulting in a need to provide more options for parking in compensation. Parking garages and lots ain't cheap to build and require a large amount of space to be worth it.

In some cases, it works out fantastically. In others, it's a gigantic, expensive hassle and total pain in the ass for the city and other drivers and it's easier and more cost efficient for people to just be mindful of one another.

I live in Portland, which has very few protected bike lanes and tons of bicyclists--and a very, very low fatality rate among bicyclists (none in 2013, 1 in 2014 I believe). Two things are different here. First, drivers here, by and large, expect me and treat me with respect--they don't swerve around me to get to the red light one second faster, they watch for me when they're turning, and they don't pass me at speed or with too little distance. Second: while there aren't protected bike lanes (no "separate area"), there is thoughtful infrastructure that reminds drivers that bicycles are there: bright green bike lanes, big bike boxes at traffic lights, etc. Paint on a road doesn't make me feel safe, but by reinforcing the idea that roads are for bicyclists, too, I think stuff like this does help.

So yeah: it's perfectly possible for bicycles to coexist with traffic safely without getting a "completely different sectioned off" area. But attitudes need to change.

Trains, buses and cars are MUCH more expensive than bikes AND are much slower inside of most large cities. Cycling is freedom, I don't have to get off a specific stops at specific times; I set off when suits me, I am not reliant on whether or not the transport is full or late, and I can go door to door.

The real question is to motorist and public transport users, why on earth aren't you riding!

Its just part of biking on the road. Theres usually no other option than riding there, so you sort of have to just deal with it. It's also something you just get used to. I have drafted of a car going 40+ mph within a foot of the bumper.

Yes sidewalk cycling is ridiculously dangerous. Pedestrians are incredibly unpredictable, someone drop their debit card suddenly they are going zero miles an hour while you're going 12 behind them. A cyclist on the road is no different than an old lady on the road, they are going to travel slower in most cases but just get in the left lane and pass them. Don't try to just scrape by them. Basically don't be an asshole.

Also, motorists do not expect things on the sidewalk to be moving as fast as bicycles can and often will turn directly across the path of a cyclist on the sidewalk. It's probably one of the best ways to get right or left hooked.

I'm biking where I have to bike. In the lane, far enough away from the edge that I'm easy for you to see and where I won't get hit by someone opening the door of a parked car.

Please don't drive next to me within arms' length. You think that's nerve-wracking for YOU? Dude, you're giving me a heart attack. The law where I live says you have to give me at least three feet.

I've carefully chosen the road that will get me where I need to go with the widest lanes, the most bike lanes, and the least traffic, but if you got stuck behind me, please just slow down and wait patiently until you can pass me safely.

I'm in the city. I'm going 5-10 miles per hour, and you're only driving 15-20. It's not going to make you late for work to take a deep, calming breath and wait until you have an open space to go around. I'll even pull over for you at the next traffic light.

I live in Holland and there are pretty much cycling roads everywhere, so that works out fine. However, when you're on the road and a cyclist has no other choice but to use the road, he has as many right to be there as you have. So it is your responsibility do drive slower in order to keep your distance and it is the bikers responsibility to not cycle in the middle of the road.

I never said that. You stay behind the cyclist until there is enough room to pass at a safe distance. There's no need to try to squeeze yourself between the cyclist and an oncoming car. 99% of the time there will be a suitable break in traffic within 30 seconds.

Outside of the rare exception that is a horse drawn carriage, all of those fit into a group except one. Can you tell which? Go ahead take your time. They are all motor vehicles except bikes. Your attempt at trying to dissect a comment to falsely validate your own point is humorous. What a joke.

I'm trying to make a point that would improve the well being of everyone who uses the roads. A separate area for bikes, just like pedestrians have their own separate area. Motor vehicles and bikes are not the same and thus shouldn't use the same paths for traveling

You talking single lane roads? In that case pass like you would normally as if it were a show vehicle. Oncoming traffic? Then wait like you normally would. If the road has multiple lanes then move over to another lane.

The cyclist should be on the far right of the lane to make it easier to pass him, although that's usually where all the crap on the road piles up.

There is nowhere else to go most of the time. A problem wouldn't exist if there was somewhere else to go. Don't be ridiculous. If being a selfish dick means not wanting to drive head on into oncoming traffic during heavy traffic, than hey I'm a selfish dick. At least it's better than being an oblivious imbecile.

I wouldn't be foolish enough to try it. And no one wants to hit a guy who's helpless while driving. It would make anyone incredibly nervous. If a bike wants to be treated like a vehicle, it needs to travel at the same speeds

First of all: no, it doesn't. The law requires that it be treated as a vehicle. Second of all, if you're driving in city traffic, you are travelling at the same speeds. Blowing past a biker to get to the next red light 10 seconds sooner is not doing you any favors and needlessly endangering lives.

And I have missed so many lights because idiot drivers were looking at their cell phones instead of the light, or because they decided to try and squeeze themselves into the intersection when the traffic ahead of them wasn't moving and got stuck there when the light changed, or because they suddenly decided they need to be on the other side of the street and cut across 3 lanes of traffic to get there. It's not cyclists creating traffic congestion in cities, it's drivers. If people weren't driving cars to begin with, there wouldn't be any traffic.

If you're driving along behind a cyclist and wait until you have room to pass with the required clearance there's nothing unsafe about that situation. (At least no more so than driving and biking already are.) It doesn't become unsafe until an impatient driver decides to break the law and squeeze themselves past a cyclist where there isn't enough room. The cyclist isn't the one making that situation unsafe, the driver is.

As a driver you are the one piloting a 2 ton hunk of steel filled with explosives. Man the fuck up and take some responsibility for your actions and don't whine about how slower moving vehicles "force" you to drive unsafely. Nobody is grabbing the steering wheel out of your hands or pushing the gas pedal for you, you are.

ATX? If you live where I think you live, then I know what you are talking about. But the town is changing and quite a few roads have biking lanes. Biking is fun and when I'm driving my car, I try to be extremely cautious and considerate of everyone on the road. One thing I dislike is that many bikers disregard stop lights/signs and traffic regulators. Yes, cars do that too, but I see more bikers do it than I do drivers as a population. That's my main issue with bikers, following traffic laws. If we all could do that, maybe there wouldn't be nearly as much prejudice. Also, if I'm not in a hurry while biking and many cars are lined up behind me because they aren't able to pass, I'll get to a safe spot and let them pass just so I won't feel like they are breathing down my neck. Just my two cents though.

I always try to give cyclists the three feet if I can, I definitely don't want anybody to get hurt. It's just tough to do during the early morning commute when there are cars bumper to bumper on both sides of the street. Where I live the roads are somewhat narrow so in order to pass a bike I have to go into the other lane, so when it's congested like that it becomes impossible.

I'm all for bikes, man. Shit keeps you healthy and helps the environment. Just wanted to say not all drivers are assholes, sometimes it's just bad timing.

So a friend of mine had this idea about self enforcement of the 3 foot law. Purchase a 3 foot section of pole, duct tape on a blue chalk piece, and gently tape it to your handlebars. Most mindful people would avoid the stick thing poking out from your bicycle. Others might get a chalk smudge on their car if they encroached.

The thing is, busses only use roads with a passing lane available. Bikes use single lane roads where it would be illegal for a bus to travel. Unless they can travel the same speed as a car, they should be treated equivalent to buses and only be allowed where's there's ample space

If there isn't a designated area, then why must you use the roads? You are only putting yourself and everyone else on the road at risk by doing so. I'm all for changing the way cities are laid out to accommodate bikers but until then, it's not appropriate for bikers to bike during heavy periods of the traffic especially if there is no lane for them. They should be held to the same standards as pedestrians, who don't use the street to walk to and from work since it is not designated for there use. What makes cycling special that it is entitled to use whatever method of travel it wants whether it accommodates them or not? There are plenty of other methods of transportation. I'm a biker, but I bike where I'm designated to, on trails and such so I don't cause an issue that doesn't need to happen.

Why should bikers yield their rights to people who drive. How about I stead, everyone who drives take public transport or walk and leave the roads to bikers? The reason bikers ride in these places is because they have the exact same legal right to as drivers. A biker on a road isn't in a place he isn't supposed to be, he is just as entitled to that road as someone in a car.

What if Digger-of-Tunnels can't afford a car at the moment? Or if he can't afford to pay a ton of money for parking and gas (not to mention insurance and maintenance)? He's just not supposed to go to work?

My 4 mile commute is under 15 minutes by bike, 30 minutes by car or an hour of walking or public transport. Cycling is also free - driving is £5/day and the bus is £4 - why would I pay more money to get to work later? I also get home earlier!

We are talking about in traffic. You're not accounting for lights. I bike to work practically every day and drive the same route on occasion. Biking is faster, every time. You can blow past the bike, but you're going to end up waiting at the same light anyway. I literally see this happen every single day.

The safest place for a bicyclist to ride is in the lane. This way the car is forced to wait until they have enough room to pass.

I don't feel safe bicycling right next to the shoulder. Here is where you risk getting hit by an opening parked car door, or being clipped by a driver who does not give you the required 3 feet of space when passing.

Except on major highways, there is no minimum speed on roads, so it is the responsibility of the faster vehicle to pass safely. Our nations roads were originally designed for horse-carriages, let's not forget.

Believe me, we would ride as far away from cars as possible if we could, but we must ride in the safest spot. Also don't forget that we are trying to get where we are going as fast as possible too. If we were to pull over to let you go by, it makes us lose time more than you lose when waiting for a safe time to pass us.

You make decent points, but the fact of the matter is that bikes and roads at this point in time don't mix. Cars should be reserved for motor vehicles that all have equal speed capabilities. Until a separate relatively sectioned off area of cities are designated for bikes, it should be the bikers responsibility to make accommodations for the drivers who make up the majority of travelers on streets.

the trouble here is a sense of entitlement on your part. the road is for EVRYBODY. the road is for people to use for transit. the road is not for you to go as fast as possible, it is for everyone around to get safely to their destination as quickly as reasonably possible. expect delays.

I'm not am avid cyclist but I used to do quite a lot of biking and towards the very sides of the road a lot of gravel, glass, sticks, and other discarded road shit collects making it difficult to bike there. At risk for popped tire or skidding or something.

Yes, I do feel entitled to use a shared resource my tax dollars pay for. It's an entitlement afforded to me by law. When I drive a car I wait until I can safely pass any cyclists sharing the road. As a driver I realize I'm not entitled to go as fast as I want all the time.

In the past, whenever I've moved over for a car that was behind me, any car that comes after that will pass me within inches, and the third car even closer. It leaves me with little room to avoid hazards like potholes and car doors. Just look at the death of Clinton Miceli. He was riding close to a line of parked cars, trying to stay out of the way of traffic, when a driver suddenly opened his car door, flinging Micelli into the road where he was run over by a second car. Good manners gets you killed. Better to be closer to the center of the road where people can see me.

In the US, most states have laws that allow cyclists to operate with the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles. It's called vehicular cycling, and it's a hell of a lot safer than having people ride all over the road.

I live pretty close to a trail that spans the entire county I live in. It's approximately 40 miles (no vehicles allowed), well-paved and maintained, and the cyclists insist on riding in traffic parallel to the freaking trail. Streets with no bike lanes.

At that point, it's less about enjoying your hobby and more about "obnoxiously enforcing my right to do this." This isn't representative of all cyclists, obviously.

It's the grey line, this red blip falls directly on it and it stretches north and south for a total of approximately 38 miles.
As you can see, it's parallel to major roadways, intersects TONS of roads, and is surrounded by businesses/city development... it's certainly not in the sticks.

On my commute to and from friends houses or work, I'll often see cyclists on the goddamned street and not 30-feet away is the trail, completely isolated from traffic, going in the same direction.

Arms length of bikers? I always graze them just enough to make them wobble but not fall from their bike. It's good to let them know who is boss of the road. It's me. I'm the boss in my 2001 Pontiac Grand Am.